2006?? Where's the update? How about Kudzu cellulosic ethanol?Where is an article like: Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrassM. R. Schmer*, K. P. Vogel*†, R. B. Mitchell*, and R. K. Perrin‡*U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, University of Nebraska, 314 Biochemistry Hall, P.O. Box 830737, Lincoln, NE 68583-0737;and ‡Agricultural Economics Department, University of Nebraska, 314A Filley Hall, Lincoln, NE 68583-0922Edited by Pamela A. Matson, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved November 21, 2007 (received for review May 21, 2007)Or better yet, PNAS tables like: Net energy of cellulosic ethanol from switchgrassSchmer et al. 10.1073/pnas.0704767105.Supporting TablesFiles in this Data Supplement:SI Table 1SI Table 2SI Table 3SI Table 4SI Table 5SI Table 6SI Table 7Table 1. Summary of total agricultural energy inputs for switchgrass fields grown for bioenergy for 5 years in Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota But FAR better yet, writing AND intepreting these table for the general lay public?But best of all -- probably for FORD? -- including the very same tables 1 through 7, for Kudzu.Why Ford? Because a Nebraska headquartered company marketing VE85 -- that is doubling the cost of a bushel of corn to the general public (and especially beef and hog producers) -- cannot be segacious enough to establish plants in, say, Georga to markegt KE85 (based on Kudzu). So it appears that if Ford is not smart enough to steal a march on the Japanese Car manufacturers in the Southern states (before the Japanese wake and begin pushing the use of Kudzu, which was also "imported" from Japan) but without its natural "Japanese" preditors, [see the Wikipedia entry on Kudzu at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu. Ford may lead the way?Why not also produce understandable NET energy for corn-based ethanol? As well as admitting AND showing the true economic impact